Debates of May 31st, 2022

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Canada Research Chairs Program

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off earlier.

To begin, I want to repeat what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said earlier today. According to my colleague, if the Bloc members' priority is to defend white men who want a job at a university, then we need to own that.

This makes me think of something I often accuse the Conservatives of, and that is taking a populist approach. If there can be right-wing populism, then there can also be left-wing populism. I will try to connect that to today's debate. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie made that comment because he was referring to something that I think is ideologically central to today's debate and that affects what we call identity politics.

In identity politics, there is a very simple concept known as Anglo-conformity. Anglo-conformity means that western societies were built with one specific person in mind, namely the white Anglo-Saxon male. It is often said that white Anglo-Saxon males would fit into every institution in western societies and have no concern about having their identity recognized.

I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that this is indeed the case. Often, it is necessary to make a special effort to ensure that our institutions are representative of our diversity. Although I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we have to see whether the thinking on EDI fits in with this concept of creating a society whose institutions are more representative.

I thought of something interesting. Every member should read Max Weber's lectures on science and politics as vocations. The author makes a distinction between the role of the scientist and the role of the politician. To that end, Max Weber describes two types of ethics: the ethics of responsibility, and the ethics of conviction. I will briefly explain this.

The idea that Max Weber wants to present is that a good idea that is tainted by ideology can often have disastrous results. I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that we must make our institutions more representative. That is certainly correct. I believe that, in the employment sector and in the public service sector, we definitely need to put in place measures to ensure that our institutions are more representative of ethnocultural diversity.

If this works in those two sectors, does it mean that this also works in the area of university research?

That is where we need to come back to the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. The ethics of responsibility encourage us to look at the negative impacts that the ideas we are trying to implement might have. Scholars often use ethics of responsibility. In politics, it is much more common to examine the ethics of conviction, which correspond with ideological purity. There must be representation because the concept of Anglo-conformity makes western societies less representative, so let us apply this to everything.

But is it possible to apply this principle to everything? I do not think so. I do not think that we should look at the research sector the same way that we look at the employment sector and the place that ethnocultural minorities hold in the public service. The research sector is very different. I would even go so far as to say that there is a correlation with the political representation system. Would it be acceptable to decide to create elected office positions for which only certain categories of individuals could run? I think members will agree that that would be an abuse of the ideology we see today in identity politics.

I would like to come back to the possible repercussions of adding conditions that have nothing to do with education to the criteria for awarding research chairs. The first one is the implication that the peer review committees that study these applications for research chairs are already insensitive to differences.

I do not believe it. How is a research chair awarded? It is the peers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I did try to signal him to let him know that his time was up. He will be able to continue during the question and comment period.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to build on what he was saying, because I am tremendously interested in the notion that the ethics of conviction are somewhat inappropriate in the field of research.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is being very kind.

This raises a question for me. For example, today's “diversity ideology” raises the following question: Are there fields of study that may now be off limits? Can a person who is non-indigenous specialize in studying indigenous communities? The definition of EDI suggests that this is not a possibility.

One thing scares me. What I wanted to say earlier is that “diversity ideology” represents a danger not unlike the one we observed in the academic world of the 1970s, when Marxism was so dominant in political science departments that all the people who had a different view were pushed aside and basically could not access funding for their research. By potentially hindering academic freedom, we run the risk of hindering knowledge, which is even more dangerous.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear someone say Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie correctly, without making puns or jokes.

I am very comfortable with diversity ideology and believe that our institutions should reflect the diversity and representativeness of different groups.

Does my colleague not see that there is a fundamental problem when only 6% of researchers or professors are members of visible minorities, even though visible minorities account for twice that percentage of the Quebec population? This means that change is not happening, or that it is happening much too slowly, and that more proactive measures are needed.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that would mean that the committees awarding research chairs have members who are insensitive to diversity.

That is what you are saying.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Only a small percentage of the population has access.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

No, the problem—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I remind members that they are not to debate each other.

I would ask the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie to wait his turn before asking another question.

The member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the problem is that science cannot be beholden to an ideology, no matter how noble that ideology may be. While I see the worth of the ideology of diversity, which I adhere to myself in many aspects of society, what we are seeing here is an attempt to dictate how university research should be conducted. That is not how this works, and if we allow it to happen, knowledge will become inaccessible, which is not how universities should be seen.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am perplexed by the NDP-Liberal government placing ideology and political correctness above competency and ability. I am wondering if the member could expand a little further on his thoughts on that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am just as perplexed as my colleague.

Earlier I spoke about Max Weber's essay “Politics as a Vocation”. Weber makes a marked distinction between the role of politics, which is to set directions for society, and the role of a vocation, which is to further knowledge. What happens with something like EDI is that politics dictates what should be studied, but that is not how it works. This can cause problems and lead to partisanship, which would be of little to no benefit to society as a whole.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, the misfortunes of the world sometimes lie in the way we name or fail to name things. We are here to discuss research funding, chairs and the EDI criteria. The use of the acronym EDI sometimes prevents us from understanding what we are talking about. We are talking about equity, diversity and inclusion. These words have been used so indiscriminately that they have practically been stripped of their meaning. Since a word is an amalgam of sound and meaning, it does not make sense when it loses its meaning. Words are used to say anything and everything.

Today, I will try to make sense of all this, so that we can better understand. Although equity, diversity and inclusion may be buzzwords, they are important concepts.

As the member for Trois-Rivières, I am particularly interested in the subject of this motion. The president of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, with whom I have regular discussions, keeps telling me that he is trying hard to attract the best researchers to all of his chairs, whether it be in social communications, pure sciences or green hydrogen. He keeps telling me how difficult it is to attract excellent candidates. Attracting the best candidates is a difficult thing, period. I cannot imagine that adding any kind of criteria would make his job any easier.

Let us at least try to look at this debate from another angle, despite the claim by some that this is a philosophical debate. Let us take the high road and demonstrate two things. First, for the enjoyment of everyone here, I will quote a philosopher who has always moved me, and that is Heraclitus. What he said can be summed up in four words: All things are one.

According to the “all things are one” philosophy, there can be no light without darkness, no left without right, no cold without hot. All things are one. Everything is included. According to Heraclitus's philosophy, inclusion is the solution to our problem. We need everyone today. That is inclusion.

Let us try to give meaning to this. Today I heard several people try to talk about or avoid talking about discrimination. Discrimination is what separates, what divides, what distinguishes between concepts. However, when discrimination is used to distinguish between concepts, it does not necessarily have a negative value, since we sometimes talk about positive discrimination.

I prefer the word “discernment” to “discrimination”. Discernment is an action that involves distinguishing between two schools of thought, taking context into account. Context is very important here. Oddly enough, EDI—equity, diversity and inclusion—excludes candidates, but I will come back to that.

In life, it is justifiable to want to correct an inequality but, as many have said, we have to remember that we do not correct one inequality by creating another. Everything is one.

Instead, I will talk about striking a balance. In awarding research funds, advancing knowledge should be the only criterion that counts. As we all know, science is not about sex, gender, colour, height, origin or residence. Science is about knowledge, it is about competence. Science is, and must remain, objective.

I will, of course, be the first to say that a diversity of voices can only enrich a discussion, especially in the humanities. Having studied philosophy, I can say that, even in my career as an ethicist, the diversity of voices that one always seeks is hard to come by. When you want to take a 360-degree look at any given subject, it becomes difficult when people's views are identical. People who look alike therefore think alike.

In the quest for truth or knowledge, one must apply what is called the ethics of discussion. Curiously, this step comes after what my colleague just mentioned, that is, after the ethics of beliefs and responsibilities. The ethics of discussion is the validation of our own ideas by a larger, more diverse group, a group that has another point of view. There is richness in diversity.

To get a research grant, first and foremost you have to master a vernacular. That is difficult. You must be well versed in the language, conform to the dictates of the research supervisor, get published in English and so on. The research environment is difficult for everyone. By the way, the requirement that the researcher publish in English is also a form of silent discrimination against francophones that dares not speak its name.

History clearly shows that there is an imbalance, a degree of discrimination against visible minorities, but, as I said, two wrongs do not make a right. Unfortunately, throughout history, minority groups, including francophones in Canada, have experienced negative discrimination. We need to acknowledge that, but, again, two wrongs do not make a right.

If there is discrimination, we need to tackle the reasons for it, not punish candidates who could be eligible for research funding.

Although diverse points of view can enrich the scientific conversation, diversity is not a prerequisite for doing good science.

The Canada research chairs program does not see it that way. According to its criteria, one cannot be a competent scientist unless one meets the diversity criteria. That statement is so outrageous that it would be laughable were it not so serious. If we examine the many criteria set out by the program, we can draw only one conclusion: The criteria are numerous, spurious and even Kafkaesque. The Canada research chairs program is based on an unrealistic vision. It is like trying to build an airplane that is supposed to fly under water.

Second, let us get out of our parliamentary bubble and our big-city bubbles and expand our horizons. Long ago, the Quebec government developed a network of 10 regional universities: the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, the Université du Québec à Rimouski, the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, the Université du Québec en Outaouais, and so on. This network was set up to develop the regions of Quebec. By comparing these universities, we can see that there are significant demographic differences within the network. I urge my colleagues to believe me when I say this: the demographics of Montreal are not comparable to those of Rimouski.

If we go further, none of these regions is comparable to the Canadian population statistics cited by the Canada research chairs program. There too, Quebec is different.

What will the Université du Québec à Rimouski need to do if the minority referred to by the criteria is simply nowhere to be found in the region served by the university?

The “Canadian” criteria in the research chair guidelines do not match the demographics of Quebec. There is a glaring injustice here, in addition to a demonstrable inequity.

I will say for the third time that diversity usually enriches a discussion, but it still has to be present in the regions in question.

By asking the government to review the criteria for awarding grants to research chairs, we are simply asking it to let science be what it is, which is objective. We are asking the government to let universities be what they are, which is independent. Furthermore, the program ignores the autonomy of universities. Basically, non‑scientists are being entrusted with the task of allocating funds to scientists, even though these non‑scientists sometimes know very little about the process, apart from the diversity criteria.

The Canada research chairs program should be content to act as a facilitator for scientific advances, advances that are based on the skills and qualifications of candidates. It should not be telling universities what to do. This is an infringement on the jurisdiction of universities and Quebec, and that is unacceptable. Through its directives, the federal government is once again interfering in matters that are none of its concern and meddling where it is not wanted.

Through our motion, we are calling on the government to review its guidelines on equity, diversity and inclusion with a focus on the first, equity, which is the first word in the acronym, EDI. It is important to distinguish between equity or equality, for they are not the same thing. When it is properly understood, equity is a criterion that encompasses and transcends diversity and inclusion. Equity is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to. If we add a little Aristotle and take a philosophical view, I would even say that it is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to, as much as humanly possible. That should be the guideline used when allocating funding. Its very meaning transcends the convoluted EDI criteria used in the Canada research chairs program.

A word of caution is needed. It is important to remember that certain groups, for any number of legitimate reasons, tend to be drawn to certain disciplines over others. We have to be careful to replace discrimination with colonialism. Discrimination of any kind has no place in our society, and neither does blind, prescriptive virtue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite. I do not necessarily share the same concerns in many ways, but the focus of my question is in regard to women specifically.

Women make up more than 50% of the population in Quebec. Would he not see that as a reason in itself to have policies to encourage and have women represented as much as possible, in getting up to that 50%?

Does he not see that as something we should be striving to achieve?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that those criteria already exist. However, one thing is certain: We must promote access for members of groups, such as women, but I do not believe that we need go so far as to ban and exclude people, because that is not the case.

As I stated in my speech, there are certain groups that, for reasons of their own, are simply not present in an area of activity. We must be careful when we push for something.

However, I agree with the member. We must foster access, but I believe that universities do a good job in that regard. Having experience with universities and research chairs, I believe that people are making a real effort.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am just furious, and disappointed, hearing the arguments from my colleagues today. We are talking about initiatives and policies that correct the under-representation of marginalized groups of people, and the Bloc wants to take away those policies. It wants to continue to marginalize and continue to push for the under-representation of these groups. I heard the member speak a bit about how some groups do not want to go into certain fields. I really think I would caution him in his assumption. We, as members of the House, should be working to increase diversity and increase equality in our institutions.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleague has been blinded by the veil of diversity.

There are some groups that would not want to go into certain sectors, and it would be paternalistic to force them to do so.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec is proud of its equal access employment programs, which applies to our universities. These programs make reference to diversity, for example, for women and persons with disabilities.

Affirmative action policies are already applied in hiring processes within health care facilities, municipalities and universities, in the case of equivalent qualifications. That is to our credit. I do not know how it works elsewhere, but that is how it works in Quebec.

Our motion is not designed to exclude. It is designed to ensure that the rules and criteria for research chairs imposed by the federal government are inclusive. It is serious to impose criteria that do not even reflect our universities' academic freedom.

Does my colleague agree?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree, but I would like to add something. Earlier, I spoke a lot about demographics, which are a merciless art because they let us know who turns how old and when.

If a certain minority is not present in a given region, what happens then? According to the current regulations and provisions, in such cases, the university would lose its research funding. That does not make any sense.

I want to reiterate, as all of my colleagues have done, that we want to be inclusive and make things easier. We believe that a better way to achieve that than what was proposed is to trust the university first and foremost, consider equal opportunity programs, give serious thought to equality, and a provide an assessment that is as fair as possible of what each person is entitled to.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Waterloo.

I want to address the Bloc's opposition day motion. I am somewhat surprised by the position it is taking on this issue. I thought it would have been a little more progressive to be open-minded to what I believe is a policy that has been fairly effective over the years. We should be looking at ways in which we can enhance opportunities for minority groups and women, who make up a majority of the population in Canada. This is often not reflected in many different sectors in our society.

I was very proud of the Prime Minister when we took office in 2015. He made a very clear statement about women in politics, and 50% of the cabinet is made up of women. We have a healthier, more progressive government as a direct result of this. Women play very strong leadership roles within our caucus, and in particular in our cabinet. Whether we talk about the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the former minister of justice, we have done some incredible work in the past number of years. It is quite encouraging when we see women leading in many different ways. I do not think it is an issue of trying to find qualified women. The qualifications are there. We have to ensure that barriers are being taken down.

I represent the riding of Winnipeg North where, and I will give some ballpark percentages, just under 40% of people are of Filipino heritage. We have about 20% indigenous. If we factor in other communities, such as my Indo-Canadian community and so forth, we get a sense of why the issue of equality and taking down systemic barriers is so critically important to me as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.

For many years, we have talked about issues such as systemic barriers that are in place, and trying to get credentials recognized. We have Ambassador Robles here from the Phillippines, and he has been raising the issue with members of Parliament in regard to getting credentials recognized here in Canada so, for example, nurses can be practising here. There are some gender issues related to that.

When we talk about the importance of diversity, we say that one of our greatest strengths in Canada is our diversity. If we look over a group, or neglect to take the actions necessary to support inclusion and ensure that people are provided the opportunities to take on many important roles in our society, we do a disservice to the whole issue of diversity. We should be taking ownership of it, promoting it and encouraging its development in all aspects in different sectors of our society.

In terms of science and research and the importance of the Canada research chairs program, let there be no doubt that we have before us a government that understands the importance of research and science. We have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars. If we look at the research chairs position, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars allocated annually and providing well over 2,000 opportunities.

Our post-secondary facilities are capable of attracting the best people in the world to ensure we are getting the research and development based on science that will enable Canada to succeed into the future. I truly believe that it is so critically important that our institutions, whether they are academic or other forms of public, especially those with public dollars, or those in the private sector, be reflective of our nation. If we make that effort in our institutions, we will have a healthier nation.

I remember Dr. Romy Magsino from Manitoba, a person of Filipino heritage who went on to play a very prominent role at the University of Manitoba in the department of education as its dean. Through that, Romy inspired many within the community. There is no doubt he had the expertise and the talents and so forth, but he inspired many others, including minorities who go beyond the Filipino heritage community, and I think that does a great deal.

What message do we send if we are attaching significant amounts of public dollars to an area, such as the chairs of our research, and we are not encouraging and promoting that diversity? I think it is absolutely critical for our youth to see that first hand. That can be very inspiring. We see mentorship programs grow from that. I think there is so much more to do, in making and taking the sacrifices necessary in order to be able to have the diversity that reflects our overall population in Canada.

I look at the University of Manitoba, and it is one of many post-secondary facilities that has greatly benefited by the federal government taking an interest in supporting research here in Canada. Through those dollars, our post-secondary institutions are better able to retain and ultimately educate some of the smartest people in the world, and the research they have done has led to incredible inventions.

A number of years ago, the University of Manitoba played a critical role in the development of agriculture with canola, and I take a look at the role canola has in the world today compared to 30 years ago. The University of Manitoba and the research that is done at our universities are what enables much of the exportation and transferring of knowledge to many different industries.

On that particular point, when we talk about investing, we recognize that our post-secondary institutions have a leading role, but often we will see partnerships. It is just not the public sector that invests in research and science. I look at agreements with places such as Red River College and Magellan Aerospace. We will see classrooms from a college being put into private sector institutions to advance research and technology.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said in order to set the record straight. Quebec is the place and the society with the most accessible school system in North America. That is the first thing.

Does the member for Winnipeg North understand that Quebec is a caring society? Does he not realize that, when it comes to social justice, Canada could find better things to do than to impose dysfunctional criteria on Quebec's universities?

I would like to hear his thoughts on some other things.

We are talking about diversity, but there is a great diversity of opinions. In April, three members expressed their misgivings about the funding criteria for research chairs in Canada. They were the member for Louis-Hébert, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation and the member for Mount Royal. Where are they today?

Does my colleague from Winnipeg North agree with his party's censure of these colleagues who disagree with the research funding criteria?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Quebec is a beautiful province with a great deal of diversity. One can talk about rural communities to Quebec City, which is a beautiful city. We had a caucus many years ago in Quebec City. I have had the opportunity to visit. There is so much rich heritage there.

We have Quebec City and the rural areas. There is so much diversity. Montreal is like a world city, and it is very diverse. The province of Quebec, like the province of Manitoba, should cherish the diversity that is there and support it. One of the ways we support it is to have good government policy that enables full participation in all sectors.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always like to hear about the University of Manitoba. It is where I went to school.

I would note that the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kingston and the Islands both get a lot of time in the House. I would encourage them, at some point, to cede some time to equity-seeking groups and marginalized groups in their communities.

I did want to visit the topic of people with disabilities. We know that too many of these roles are not being filled by people in equity-seeking groups, and certainly, people with disabilities have even more barriers and challenges getting access to academic grants. Does the government have any affirmative action initiatives to make sure that persons with disabilities are able to equally access grants, research and funding in this country?